Missouri business owners owe no general duty to protect against third-party criminal acts.

ABSTRACT: Missouri Appellate Court affirms the general rule that businesses have no duty to protect an invitee from third-party criminal acts occurring on its premises.

The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed the general rule in Missouri that a business owner/operator has no duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third-parties. One hot summer day, the plaintiff in M.B. v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., et al. attended a concert at the Hollywood Casino Amphitheater, operated by Live Nation. She arrived at the concert with a male acquaintance (A.R.) and suspected that she had been given a date rape drug at some point during the evening. M.B. became sick and asked A.R. to get his truck so they could leave the concert early. While A.R. retrieved his truck, M.B. received medical attention from an on-site nurse. The nurse recalled that M.B. was overheated and had overconsumed alcohol. She was treated with air conditioning, a cold towel and water. The nurse treating M.B. determined she was fit to leave the concert and M.B. signed herself out of treatment and waited at a nearby security tent for A.R. When A.R. arrived at the front gate, security personnel asked M.B. if her friend drove a truck. M.B. said yes and proceeded to get into A.R.’s truck. M.B. alleged that A.R. raped her after they returned to M.B.’s apartment. 

M.B. filed suit against Live Nation and its employee Leslie Ramsey, who was responsible for security at the concert. M.B. alleged that each assumed a duty to provide M.B. and other invitees adequate security to ensure she was capable of caring for her own safety before being released to A.R. Live Nation and Ramsey moved for summary judgement asserting that they owed no duty to M.B. to prevent the alleged crime that occurred at her apartment. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and M.B. appealed. 

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling and, in doing so, examined the longstanding general rule in Missouri related to a premises owner/operator’s duty to protect its invitees from third-party criminal acts. The rationale for the general rule is that criminal acts occurring on one’s property are rarely foreseeable. However, the no duty rule is not absolute and Missouri Courts have long held that there are two exceptions to the rule, the “special-relationship exception” and the “special-circumstances exception”. 

The “special-relationship exception” only applies in situations where one has entrusted their safety to another, such as an innkeeper-guest, common carrier-passenger, school-student, and in certain situations, employer-employee. Keenan v. Miriam Found., 784 S.W.2d 298, 305 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). The “special-relationship exception” does not apply to landlord-tenant relationships.  Id. The “special-relationship exception” can also apply in situations where a specific third-person, known to be violent is on the premises or a third-person is on the premises and has acted in a manner which indicates they are dangerous and there is sufficient time for the business owner to act to prevent injury. Wieland v. Owner-Operator Servs., 5440 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Mo. 2018).          

The “special-circumstances exception” applies in situations where the third-party is not known to the business owner. The exception is triggered where there is evidence of prior similar incidents occurring on its premises and, as a result, there is a likelihood that a third-party will endanger an invitee.

The Missouri Court of Appeals in M.B. rejected plaintiff’s argument that both exceptions applied. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that Live Nation had notice that A.R. was or was likely to become a threat to M.B while on the premises, and no evidence that it was foreseeable to Live Nation that A.R. might commit the alleged criminal conduct off-premises. Importantly, summary judgment was affirmed even though plaintiff offered testimony from an expert witness in the security field that Live Nation and Ramsey breached their duty of care to M.B. In what can be viewed as a win for business owners, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined M.B.’s invitation to expand the scope of the long-established and limited exceptions to the general rule.